Tfie  Story  of 

ho  Revised  New  Testament 


American  Standard  Edil 


Aiaxinew  tsrown  KKictie 


BSI88 
.R54 


txhvaxy  of  €he  Cheolo^ical  ^eminarjp 

PRINCETON  .  NEW  JERSEY 

-^^^ 

FROM  THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 

REVEREND  CHARLES  ROSENBURY  ERDMAN 
D.D.,  LL.D. 


Al 


THE  STORY  OF 
THE  REVISED  NEW  TESTAMENT 

AMERICAN  STANDARD  EDITION 


(?H .  /^ .  ^^^^^^ 


•oiy 


^•^^<JjLAlSi.:^'\ 


The   Story  of 
The  Revised  New  Testament 

American  Standard  Edition 


By  \/ 

Matthew  Brown   Riddle 

One  of  the  Revisers 


The  Sunday  School  Times  Company 
Philadelphia 


Copyright,  1908, 

BY 

The  Sunday  School  Times  Co. 


PREFACE 

It  was  necessary  in  telling  this  story  to 
begin  at  the  inception  of  the  movement  for 
Revision.  Hence  this  little  book  repeats 
many  facts  that  were  published  when,  and 
immediately  after,  the  Revised  New  Testa- 
ment of  1 88 1  appeared.  But  another  gener- 
ation has  grown  up  since  that  date,  and 
much  well  known  to  Biblical  scholars  will 
be  new  to  most  readers  to-day.  Yet,  even  in 
telling  of  the  labors  before  1881,  the  writer, 
from  his  connection  with  the  American 
Company  of  New  Testament  Revisers,  has 
been  able  to  include  many  facts  not  known 
to  the  general  public.  The  account  of  the 
preparation  of  the  Standard  Edition  of  the 
American  Revised  New  Testament  has 
never  been  published  before,  and  the  writer 
has  found,  from  many  letters  of  inquiry, 
that  little  is  known  about  the  details.  The 
same  inquiries  indicate  a  desire  to  learn  the 
facts  as  here  briefly  presented.  Thirty-five 
years  have  passed  since  the  work  began,  and 
this  sketch  has  been  penned  in  the  desire  and 
hope  of  making  these  long  years  of  labor 
5 


Preface 

more  profitable  to  the  readers  of  the  New 
Testament. 

Western   Theological  Seminary, 
Allegheny,  Pa. 


CONTENTS 

SECTION  I 
Preliminary 9 

SECTION  II 
Members  AND  Method  of  Co-operation     .    17 

SECTION   III 
The  Greek  Text  of  the  Revisers      .     .     .27 

SECTION  IV 
The  Emended  Renderings 35 

SECTION  V 
The  American  Appendix 43 

SECTION  VI 
The  Interval,  1881-1897 51 

SECTION  VII 

The  Preparation  of  the  American  Revised 

New  Testament 59 

7 


Contents 

SECTION  VIII 

PAGK 

The  Reception  of  the  American-  Revised 

Bible 67 

SECTION  IX 

The   Distinctive   Features  of  the  AiMerican 
Revised  New  Testament    .     .     .     .   'jt, 


SECTION  I 

Preliminarv 

On  the  sixth  day  of  May,  1870,  the  Con- 
vocation of  Canterbury  took  final  action  on 
a  report  favoring  a  revision  of  the  Author- 
ized Version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  As 
early  as  1856  an  attempt  was  made,  in  the 
Convocation  and  also  in  Parliament,  to  have 
a  Royal  commission  appointed  for  the  same 
purpose ;  hut  the  efifort  failed.  Various 
causes  contributed  to  bring  the  mat- 
ter to  a  favorable  issue  in  1870.  So  far 
as  the  Nev^  Testament  was  concerned, 
the  most  influential  factor  was  prob- 
ably the  discovery  by  Tischendorf,  in 
1859,  of  the  whole  Codex  Sinaiticus,  forty- 
three  leaves  of  which,  containing  parts  of 
the  Old  Testament,  he  had  rescued  from  a 
waste-basket  in  the  library  of  the  convent  of 
St.  Catharine  at  Mt.  Sinai,  as  early  as  1844. 
This  Greek  manuscript,  containing  both  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  and  ranking  in  age 
with  the  oldest  one  known  up  to  that  time, 
practically  settled  the  general  character  of 
9 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

the  New  Testament  text  in  the  judgment  of 
competent  scholars.  The  \'atican  manu- 
script had  long  been  known,  but  had  also 
been  inaccessible.  When  the  text  it  con- 
tained became  accurately  known,  and  was 
found  to  be  in  substantial  agreement  with 
that  of  the  Sinaitic  manuscript,  it  was  felt 
that  this  older  text  must  be  more  accurate 
than  the  so-called  Received  Text,  on  which 
the  Authorized  \'ersion  is  based.  English 
commentators  virtually  became  individual 
revisers :  and  indeed  five  Anglican  clergs^- 
men,  including  Dean  Alford  and  Bishop 
Ellicott,  published  as  early  as  1857  a  revision 
of  the  Gospel  of  John,  which  was  followed 
by  other  portions  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  Convocation  of  Canterburs^  was 
unanimous  in  its  action.  The  nucleus  of  the 
Revision  Companies  was  selected  from  its 
own  members,  but  with  this  most  important 
provision,  namely,  that  the  body  appointed 
by  the  Convocation  from  its  own  members 
"shall  be  at  liberty  to  invite  the  co-operation 
of  any  eminent  for  scholarship,  to  whatever 
nation  or  religious  body  they  may  belong." 
This  broad-minded  action  led  to  the  invita- 
tion of  many  Biblical  scholars  from  the 
United  Kingdom,  many  of  them  not  con- 


Preliminary 

nected  with  the  EstabHshed  Church  of  Eng- 
land. It  also  led  to  the  organization  of  co- 
operating Companies  in  America. 

The  English  New  Testament  Company 
began  its  labors  on  June  22.,  1870;  the  num- 
ber of  working  members  being  twenty-four, 
for  the  greater  portion  of  the  time.  Bishop 
Ellicott  was  the  active  chairman,  though 
Bishop  Wilberforce  was  originally  ap- 
pointed. The  latter  attended  but  one  meet- 
ing, and  died  during  the  progress  of  the 
work. 

The  two  houses  of  the  Convocation  of 
Canterbury  voted,  July  7,  1870,  ''to  invite  the 
co-operation  of  some  American  divines," 
Bishop  Wilberforce  and  Dean  Stanley  being 
entrusted  with  the  duty  of  opening  com- 
munication with  America  to  bring  about  the 
desired  co-operation.  What  followed  is 
thus  stated  bv  Dr.  Schafif* :  "In  August, 
1870,  Dr.  Joseph  Angus,  President  of  Re- 
gent's Park  College,  London,  and  one  of  the 
British  revisers,  arrived  in  New  York,  with 
a  letter  from  Bishop  Ellicott,  chairman  of 
the  New  Testament  Company,  authorizing 

•iNTRODUCrrOK     ON     THE     REVISION    OF      THE      ENGLISH 

Bible:   prefixed  to   the   republished    Essays   on  the   sub- 
ject   by    Archbishop    Trench,    and    Bishops    Ellicott    and 
Lightfoot,  New  York:  Harper  &  Brothers,  1872. 
II 


TJie  Revised  New  Testament 

him  to  open  negotiations  for  the  formation 
of  an  American  Committee  of  Revision.  At 
his  request,  I  prepared  a  draft  of  rules  for 
co-operation, andaHst  of  names  of  Biblical 
scholars  who  would  probably  best  represent 
the  different  denominations  and  literary  in- 
stitutions in  this  movement.  The  sugges- 
tions were  submitted  to  the  British  Commit- 
tee and  substantially  approved.  Then  fol- 
lowed an  interesting  official  correspondence, 
conducted,  on  behalf  of  the  British  Commit- 
tee, by  the  Bishop  of  Winchester,  the  Dean 
of  Westminster,  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester 
and  Bristol,  and  Dr.  Angus.  I  was  em- 
powered by  the  British  Committee  to  select 
and  invite  scholars  from  non-Episcopal 
Churches ;  the  nomination  of  members  from 
the  American  Episcopal  Church  was,  for 
obvious  reasons,  placed  in  the  hands  of  some 
of  its  Bishops ;  but,  as  they  declined  to  take 
action,  I  was  requested  to  fill  out  the  list." 
All  the  correspondence  indicated  in  the 
above  statement  has  been  published  (1885) 
by  Dr.  Schaff,  in  a  Documentary  History  of 
the  Revision  (New  York:  Charles  Scrib- 
ner's  Sons).  The  House  of  Bishops  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States,  by  declining  to  formally  approve  the 
12 


Preliminary 

movement  for  revision,  left  it  free  from 
every  suspicion  of  ecclesiastical  control. 
Had  the  selection  of  the  Committee  been 
placed  in  the  hands  of  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
there  never  could  have  been  any  American 
co-operation. 

The  prominence  of  Dr.  Schaff  in  the  for- 
mation of  the  Committee  was  quite  natural. 
Known,  both  personally  and  by  his  writings, 
to  European  scholars,  a  wonderful  organ- 
izer, and  of  great  executive  ability,  familiar 
with  many  denominations  in  America,  and 
free  from  sectarian  bias  in  his  personal  at- 
titude, he  was  well  fitted  for  the  difficult 
and  delicate  task  assigned  to  him  by  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  British  Committee.  As 
President  of  the  American  Committee  his 
official  activity  contributed  greatly  to  the 
ultimate  successful  result.  Moreover,  as 
editor  of  Lange's  Commentary,  he  had 
proposed  many  emendations,  and  he  and 
his  fellow-laborers  in  that  work  had  an- 
ticipated the  larger  proportion  of  the 
changes  finally  accepted  by  the  Revisers. 

Dr.  Schaff  says :  "In  the  delicate  task  of 

selection,  reference  was  had,  first  of  all,  to 

ability,  experience,  and  reputation  in  Biblical 

learning  and  criticism;  next,  to  denomina- 

13 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

tional  connection  and  standing,  so  as  to  have 
a  fair  representation  of  the  leading  churches 
and  theological  institutions  ;  and  last,  to  local 
convenience,  in  order  to  secure  regular  at- 
tendance" (Introduction,  etc.).  The  New 
Testament  Company,  as  finally  constituted, 
included  representatives  of  eight  denomina- 
tions, and  one  other  was  represented  in  the 
Old  Testament  Company.  Several  changes 
were  made  before  the  work  began. 

The  organization  of  the  American  Com- 
mittee took  place  December  7,  1871,  when 
a  constitution  was  adopted  by  those  w^ho 
had  been  invited  to  take  part  in  the  revision. 
But  there  was  still  further  delay,  owing  to 
some  practical  difficulties  that  required  ad- 
justment between  the  two  Committees.  At 
last,  on  October  4,  1872,  the  American  Com- 
panies began  their  labors.  Numbers  40  and 
42  Bible  House,  New  York,  were  the  reg- 
ular places  of  meeting,  and,  as  the  rooms 
were  connected,  conference  between  the 
two  bodies  was  readily  maintained.  The 
British  Committee,  having  already  made 
some  progress  in  their  work,  had  agreed 
to  send  copies  of  such  parts  of  their  first 
and  provisional  revision  as  had  been 
completed.  Accordingly,  at  this  first  ses- 
14 


P7'elimi7iary 

sion  of  the  American  Committee  these 
copies  were  distributed.  The  New  Tes- 
tament Company  received  copies  of  the 
Synoptical  Gospels,  all  marked  ''private 
and  confidential,"  with  a  written  state- 
ment from  Bishop  Ellicott  upon  each,  desig- 
nating the  person  for  whom  the  copy  was 
intended,  and  the  confidential  use  to  be  made 
of  it.  Active  work  at  once  began  and  con- 
tinued until  1881.  Then,inaccordancewith 
an  agreement  prescribed  by  the  University 
Presses,  who  held  the  English  copyright  as 
a  return  for  the  payment  of  all  the  expenses 
of  the  British  Committee,  an  interval  of 
fourteen  years  (afterwards  extended)  oc- 
curred before  the  preparation  of  the  separate 
American  Revised  Version.  This  was  pub- 
lished by  Messrs.  Thomas  Nelson  and  Sons 
in  1 901.  There  are  therefore  three  periods 
in  the  history:  That  of  co-operation,  1872- 
1881 ;  that  of  stipulated  delay,  1881-1895,  or 
rather,  1899,  since  the  Old  Testament  was 
not  published  until  1885  ;  that  of  editing 
the  American  Revised  Version,  closing  in 
1901. 


15 


SECTION  II 

Members  and  Method  of  Co-operation 

Nineteen  names  are  included  in  the  pub- 
lished list  of  members  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment Company  of  American  Revisers. 
But  only  fifteen  ever  engaged  in  the 
work,  and  two  of  these  for  a  very  brief 
period.  Dr.  Henry  B.  Smith  attended  but 
one  meeting,  resigning  from  ill-health ;  Drs. 
Crooks  and  Warren  resigned  from  inability 
to  attend  ;  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  never  attended 
any  meetings,  and  showed  no  approval  of 
the  undertaking.  Prof.  Hadley  attended  but 
one  meeting,  dying"  in  the  following  month. 
The  company  at  once  chose  Dr.  Timothy 
Dwight  in  his  place.  Dr.  Hackett,  after  the 
first  year,  found  himself  unable  to  attend, 
and  at  his  death  (in  1875)  no  one  was 
chosen  in  his  place. 

The  thirteen  members  who  continued 
their  joint  labors  until  1881  were: 

The  Rev.  Theolxire  D.  Woolsey,  D.  D., 
LL.  D.  (Chairman),  Ex-President  of  Yale 
College,  New  Haven,  Conn.  Born  in  New 
17 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

York,  Oct.  31,  1801;  died  at  New  Haven, 
July  I,  1889. 

The  Rev.  J.  Henry  Thayer,  D.  D., 
(Secretary),  formerly  Professor  of  New- 
Testament  Exegesis  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  at  Andover,  Mass.,  afterwards 
in  the  same  chair  at  Harvard  Divinity 
School.  Born  in  Boston,  Nov.  7,  1828; 
died  at  Cambridge,  Mass.,  Nov.  26,  1901. 

Charles  Short,  LL.  D.,  Professor  of 
Latin  in  Columbia  College,  New  York. 
Born  May  28,  1821,  in  Haverhill,  Mass.; 
died  Dec.  24,  1886,  at  New  York. 

Ezra  Abbot,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Professor 
of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  the  Divinity 
School  of  Harvard  University,  Cambridge, 
Mass.  Born  April  28,  1819,  in  Jackson, 
Maine;  died  at  Cambridge,  Mass.,  March 
21,  1884. 

The  Rev.  J.  K.  Burr,  D.  D.,  Trenton, 
N.  J.  Born  Sept.  21,  1825,  in  Middletown, 
Conn. ;  died  at  Trenton,  N.  J.,  April  24, 
1882. 

Thomas  Chase,  LL.  D.,  President  of 
Haverford  College,  Pa.  Born  June  16, 
1827,  in  Worcester,  Mass.;  died  in  1892. 

The  Rev.  Howard  Crosby,  D.  D.,  LL.  D., 
Ex-Chancellor  of  the  University  of  New 
18 


Members  and  Method  of  Co-operation 

York.  Born  Feb.  26,  1826,  in  New  York; 
died  March  21,  1891. 

The  Rev. Timothy  Dwight,  D.D.,LL.D., 
Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in 
the  Divinity  School  of  Yale  College,  Presi- 
dent of  Yale  University,  1886-99.  Born  in 
Norwich,  Conn.,  Nov.  16,  1828.  Resides 
in  New  Haven. 

The  Rev.  Asahel  Clark  Kendrick, 
D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Professor  of  Greek  in  the 
University  of  Rochester,  N.  Y.  Born  Dec. 
7,  1809,  in  Poultney,  Vt. ;  died  Oct.  22,  1895. 

The  Right  Rev.  Alfred  Lee,  D.  D., 
LL.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Diocese  of  Delaware.  Born  Sept.  9,  1807, 
in  Cambridge,  Mass.;  died  April  12,  1887, 
at  Wilmington,  Del. 

The  Rev.  Matthew  Brown  Riddle, 
D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Professor  of  New  Testament 
Exegesis  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at 
Hartford,  Conn.,  since  1887  in  the  same 
chair  at  the  Western  Theological  Seminary, 
Allegheny,  Pa.  Born  Oct.  17,  1836,  in  Pitts- 
burgh, Pa.  Resides  in  Allegheny  (now 
Pittsburgh),  Pa. 

The  Rev.  Philip  Schaff,  D.  D.,  LL.  D., 
Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  (and  after- 
wards of  other  Departments)  in  the  Union 
19 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  Born 
Jan.  I,  1819,  in  Coire,  Switzerland;  died 
Oct.  20,  1893,  at  New  York. 

The  Rev.  Edward  Abiel  Washburn, 
D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Rector  of  Calvary  Church, 
New  York.  Born  April  16,  181  \  in  Boston, 
Mass.;  died  Feb.  2,  1881,  at  New  York. 

Three  of  these,  the  youngest  in  years, 
became  the  editors  of  the  American  Stand- 
ard Revised  New  Testament:  Drs.  Dwight, 
Thayer  and  Riddle.  Dr.  Thayer  lived  to  see 
the  published  volume,  but  died  a  few 
months  afterward  (Nov.  26,  1901).  Of  the 
original  members  the  present  writer  is  the 
sole  survivor,  though  Dr.  Dwight  was 
elected  very  soon  after  the  first  meeting. 

The  sessions  were  held  on  the  last  Friday 
and  Saturday  of  each  month,  from  Septem- 
ber to  May.  During  the  summer  it  was 
usual  to  meet  once  for  a  longer  session,  at 
New  Haven  or  Andover.  On  Fridays  from 
eight  to  'ten  hours  were  spent  in  deliber- 
ation ;  on  Saturday,  the  Company  ad- 
journed earlier,  to  enable  the  members  to 
reach  their  homes  that  evening.*- 

*It  became  the  habit  of  four  of  us  to  make  the  home 

journey  together.     Dr.   Woolsey  left  us   at   New  Haven, 

while    Drs.    Abbot   and    Thayer   parted    with   the    present 

writer  at    Hartford.     Few  memories   are   more   delightful 

20 


Members  and  Method  of  Co-operation 

When  in  session  the  position  about  the 
table  was  as  indicated: 


OR.    WOOLSEV 

OR.     SCHAFF 

BISHOP    LEE 

PROF.    SHORT 

OR      THAYER 

OR.    RIOOLE 

OR     ABBOT 

PRES     CHASE 

OR.    KENDRICK 

OH.    BURR 

OR.    OWIGHT 

OR.    WASHBURN 

OR.    CROSBY 

Dr.  Schaff,  whose  private  desk  was  in  the 
room,  usually  sat  there,  but  joined  the  group 
at  the  table  at  frequent  intervals.  While  no 
vice-chairmaij  was  ever  elected,  Dr.  Crosby 
usually  presided  on  the  rare  occasions  when 
Dr.  Woolsey  was  absent.     Professor  Short 

than  those  connected  with  these  homeward  trips.  The 
stress  of  labor  was  over,  and,  while  some  echoes  of  the 
meetings  appeared,  there  was  a  charming  mingling  of 
wit  and  wisdom  in  the  conversations.  All  who  have 
known  my  three  companions  will  understand  what  a 
privilege  this  familiar  social  intercourse  must  have  been. 
21 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

was  secretary,  but  Dr.  Thayer  was  his 
assistant,  and  in  his  hands  were  the  most 
detailed  records  of  the  discussions  and  de- 
cisions. 

The  two  Companies  in  America,  unlike 
those  in  England,  had  an  organization  in 
common;  Dr.  Schaff  being  President,  and 
Dr.  George  E.  Day,  Secretary.  This  proved 
a  great  convenience  in  many  ways.  No 
compensation  has  ever  been  received  by  any 
of  the  members  during  the  twenty-nine 
years,  from  1872  to  1901.  The  necessary 
traveling  and  incidental  expenses  were  met 
by  contributions  from  friends  of  the  move- 
ment, Mr.  Andrew  L.  Taylor,  of  the  Bible 
Society,  kindly  acting  as  Treasurer.  The 
total  amount  required  during  the  period  of 
co-operation  was  nearly  $50,000.'*' 

The    method  of    co-operation,  as    finally 

*At  first  contributions  were  solicited  by  members  of 
the  Committee,  but  afterwards  a  more  convenient  way 
was  adopted.  To  contributors  of  $10  a  presentation  copy 
of  the  Memorial  Volume  of  the  New  Testament  was 
oflFered.  The  response  was  gratifying.  The  Memorial 
Volume  was  in  the  very  best  style  of  printing  and  bind- 
ing. They  were  delivered  by  the  University  Presses 
free  of  charge,  and  by  special  Congressional  enactment 
were  admitted  free  of  duty.  To  each  of  the  American 
Revisers  ten  copies  were  allotted;  these  volumes  being 
the  only  compensation  received.  Similar  offers  were 
made  in  regard  to  the  Revised  Old  Testament. 
22 


Members  and  Method  of  Co-operation 

agreed  upon,  included :  the  sending  of  the 
first  and  provisional  revision  from  England 
to  America;  then  the  consideration  of  this 
by  the  American  Company,  the  results  being 
returned  to  England ;  then,  after  careful  con- 
sideration of  the  suggestions  from  America, 
a  second  English  revision,  which  was  also 
sent  to  this  country,  and  the  same  course 
pursued  in  regard  to  it.  Practically  a  third 
revision  was  made  in  England,  in  order  to 
secure  more  uniformity  in  the  renderings. 
Indeed  Bishop  Ellicott,  in  his  final  report  to 
the  Convocation,  intimates  that  there  were 
virtually  seven  revisions,  including  the 
American  reviews  of  the  matter  sent  to  this 
country.  Furthermore  it  was  agreed  that 
an  appendix  should  be  published  with  the 
English  Revised  Version,  containing  the 
more  important  preferences  of  the  American 
Company.  As  the  Authorized  Version  of 
the  New  Testament  was  the  work  of  two 
separate  companies,  who  never  discussed 
their  results  in  common,  the  superiority 
of  a  version  resulting  from  this  united 
and  corporate  discussion  is  apparent.  It 
was  further  stipulated,  by  the  University 
Presses,  who  owned  the  English  copy- 
right, that  the  American  Company  should 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

not  publish  an  edition  of  their  own  for  a 
term  of  fourteen  years. 

That  the  EngHsh  Revisers  gave,  as  they 
state  in  their  Preface,  "much  care  and 
attention"  to  the  American  suggestions  is 
shown  by  the  number,  either  incorporated 
in  the  text  or  added  in  the  margin  of  the 
Revision  of  1881,  probably  one  thousand 
in  all,  as  estimated  by  Bishop  Lee.'-^  The 
American  Appendix,  moreover,  formed  an 
essential  part  of  the  results  of  this  co- 
operative labor.  In  regard  to  this  Ap- 
pendix further  details  will  be  given  in  a 
subsequent  section. 

In  the  sessions  of  the  American  Company 
the  mode  of  procedure  was  usually  this: 
A  passage  was  assigned  in  advance  and  each 
member  made  his  individual  preparation 
at  home.  At  the  sessions  Dr.  Woolsey 
read  the  passage  assigned  verse  by  verse 
from  the  English  Revision,  and  was  fol- 
lowed by  Bishop  Lee,  who  read  the 
corresponding  verse  from  the  Authorized 
\'ersion.  Remarks  were  made  by  the 
m.embers,  whether  in  approval  or  in 
disapproval     of    the    proposed    changes. 

•See  SchafT's  Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament,  pp. 
579-606. 

24 


Members  and  Method  of  Co-operation 

In  many  cases  little  discussion  ensued, 
since  the  necessity  for  the  emenda- 
tion was  obvious.  But  frequently  a  single 
verse  would  call  for  prolonged  debate,  es- 
pecially when  the  change  proposed  involved 
a  large  class  of  passages.  A  few  of  the  very 
important  changes  called  for  printed  state- 
ments, which  were  transmitted  to  England. 
One  of  the  most  important  changes  urged 
by  the  American  Company,  and  finally  ac- 
cepted by  the  English  Company,  was  the 
substitution  of  *'Hades"  for  ''hell"  in  pas- 
sages where  the  equivalent  Greek  term  oc- 
curs. Where  *'Gehenna"  occurs  ''hell"  was 
retained,  with  the  margin  "Or.  Gehoma!' 
The  intent  was  to  distinguish  between  two 
terms,  which  are  not  synonymous.  For 
while  ''Hades"  may  include  a  place  of  pun- 
ishment, it  usually  means  the  place  or  state 
of  the  dead.  "Gehenna"  is  the  place  of  pun- 
ishment. Unfortunately  this  distinction  has 
not  been  understood,  and  the  substitution  of 
"Hades"  has  been  regarded  as  an  attempt  to 
get  rid  of  the  idea  of  future  punishment. 


25 


SECTION  III 

The  Greek  Text  of  the  Revisers 

The  chief  peculiarity  of  the  Revised  New 
Testament  is  that  it  represents  a  much  older, 
and,  in  the  judgment  of  all  competent  schol- 
ars, a  more  accurate^Greek  text.  Naturally 
this  makes  it  greatly  superior  to  the  Author- 
ized Version.  The  latter  was  based  upon 
the  Greek  Testament  of  Beza,  from  which  it 
differs  in  only  forty  places.  Now  Beza, 
while  a  careful  exegete,  was  not  an 
expert  textual  critic.  In  his  day  the 
science  of  textual  criticism  had  not 
yet  been  developed.  The  editors  pre- 
ceding him,  Erasmus  and  Robert 
Stephen  (or,  Stephens,  as  generally 
printed),  had  few  Greek  manuscripts,  and 
no  settled  critical  principles.  It  is  usual  to 
speak  of  the  text  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
on  which  the  Authorized  Version  is  based, 
as  the  "Received  Text."  But  this  is  not 
strictly  correct.  The  edition  which  claims  to 
present  the  Received  Text  was  printed  by 
the  Elzevirs,  at  Lcyden,  in  1633,  twenty-two 
27 


The  Revised  Ntw  Testament 

years  after  the  publication  of  the  Author- 
ized Version.  But  it  differs  very  sHghtly 
from  Stephen  and  Beza.  In  the  discussions 
between  the  Roman  CathoHcs  and  Protes- 
tants during  the  sixteenth  century,  neither 
party  took  the  right  view  of  the  Greek  text. 
The  Roman  CathoHcs  accepted  the  Latin 
Vulgate  as  authoritative,  while  the  Protes- 
tants contended  for  the  authority  of  the 
original  Greek  (and  Hebrew).  But 
the  text  which  the  Protestants  used 
^was  in  many  cases,  it  is  now  acknowl- 
edged, less  accurate  than  that  repre- 
sented by  the  Vulgate.  The  true  posi- 
tion is :  that  the  original  Greek  text 
is  authoritative ;  not  any  translation,  or  any 
later  and  possibly  impure  and  inaccurate 
text.  To  discover  this  original  Greek  text 
has  been  the  task  of  textual  critics,  since 
the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
The  labors  of  Bengel,  Griesbach,  Lachmann, 
Tischendorf  and  Tregelles  convinced  New 
;  Testament  scholars  that  the  ori^^gLtext 
■  had  been  substantially  recovered.  While  in 
minor  details  there  was  room  for  discus- 
sion, the  position  of  both  the  English 
and  American  New  Testament  Companies 
was  decidedly  in  favor  of  accepting  the 
28 


The  Greek  Text  of  the  Revisers 

text    resulting    from    the    labors    of    these 
critics,    in     preference    to    the    uncritical 
text    on    which    tlie    Authorized    Version 
was    based.    '  ilurneither    Company    at-  ! 
terripted      to    construct    a    continuous    and  ' 
complete  Greek  text,"  as   is  stated  in  the 
Preface  to  the  Revised  New  Testament  of 
1 88 1.    So  that  no  edition  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament can  claim  to  present  *'the  Revisers'  J 
text,"  since  on  many  passages  where  there 
are  various  readings,  different  spellings  and 
punctuation,  the  Revisers  passed  no  judg- 
ment.   Only  upon  readings  that  would  affect 
the  English   dress    was    any   action    taken. 

For  convenience  in  England  Scrivener's 
Greek  Testament  was  used  to  mark  the 
changes  in  text.  This  edition  has  in  foot- 
notes the  various  readings  accepted  by  the 
principal  critical  editors,  the  text  itself  being 
that  of  Stephen.  As  these  notes  are  num- 
bered, in  transmitting  the  first  Revision  to 
America  a  list  of  the  numbers  prefixed  to 
the  preferred  readings  was  added.  Thus 
the  judgment  of  the  English  Revisers  was 
accurately  indicated. 

It  has  often  been  asked :  What  edition  was 
accepted  by  the  Revisers  ? 

The  only  answer  is,  the  readings  of  no  one 
29 


The  Revised  New  Testa^nent 

edition  were  accepted,  but  each  various  read- 
ing was  discussed,  first  in  England  and  then 
in  America.    In  England  Dr.  Scrivener  was 
the  main  advocate  on  one  side,  and  Drs. 
Westcott  and  Hort  on  the  other.    The  Greek 
Testament  of  the  latter  had  not  been  pub- 
lished when  the  work  of  revision  began,  but 
copies    of   the    Gospels    were    printed    and 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  English  Company. 
A  copy  sent  to  America  was  entrusted  to 
the  present  writer,  who  collated  the  read- 
ings and  added  notices  of  them  to  the  foot- 
notes in  Scrivener's  edition.    It  was  evident 
I  that  the  readings  accepted  by  the  English 
?  Revisers  were  quite  as  frequently  those  of 
.  Tregelles  a:3  those  of  Westcott  and  Hort. 
In   the   American    Company   the    readings 
'were  carefully  discussed.    While  in  the  vast 
majority   of  cases   the   preferences   of  the 
English  Revisers  were  approved,  this^was 
due  to  independent    judgment.      Dr.    Ezra 
Abbot  was  tKe'^loremost    textual  critic    in 
America,  and  his  opinions  usually  prevailed 
when  questions  of  text  were    debated.      It 
may  be  said  that  neither  he  nor  any  other 
]  member  of  the  Company  endorsed  the  pe- 
^  culiar  theory  of  Westcott  and  Hort,  in  re- 
gard to  what  they  call  the  "Neutral"  text, 
I  30 


TJie  Greek  Text  of  tJie  Revisers 

a  theory  which  gives  to  the  Codex  Vatica-  * 
nus  (designated  B)  preponderating  author-  j 
ity.  So  also  the  obvious  partiahty  of  \ 
Tischendorf  for  the  readings  of  the  Codex  i 
Sinaiticus  (designated  Aleph),  which  he  , 
had  discovered,  was  carefully  guarded  j 
against. 

Another  question  has  frequently  been 
asked:  What  manuscript  or  manuscripts 
did  the  Revisers  follow  ?  The  answer  again 
is :  No  one  manuscript.  In  each  case  all  the 
leading  authorities  were  recognized,  and  the 
judgment  based  upon  evidence,  both  ex- 
ternal and  internal.  From  the  results  it 
would  appear  that  the  American  Company 
gave  more  weight  to  internal  evidence,  and 
the  English  Company  to  the  external  evi- 
dence. Nearly  all  the  differences  between 
thetwoCompanies.asregards  readings,  are 
indicated  in  the  American  Appendix  pub- 
lished in  the  Revised  New  Testament  of 
1881.  In  many  instances  the  English  Com- 
pany preferred  one  reading  in  the  text  and 
another  in  the  margin,  while  the  American 
Company  reversed  this  position.  The  mar- 
ginal notes  which  refer  to  alternate  read- 
ings, that  is,  to  other  forms  of  the  Greek 
text,  are  carefully  worded,  and  give  an 
31 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

estimate  of  evidence  supporting  the  reading. 
Usually  the  formula  is:  "Some  ancient  au- 
thorities read,"  etc.  Where  the  reading  is 
more  strongly  attested,  ''Many  ancient 
authorities"  occurs.  In  a  few  special  cases 
the  evidence  is  otherwise  indicated:  e.  g., 
**Many  very  ancient  authorities,"  ''Very 
many  ancient  authorities,"  "Many  authori- 
ties, some  ancient."  Mark  i6:  9-20,  and 
John  7:53-8:11  required  special  notes. 

As  the  text  of  the  w^hole  New  Testa- 
ment was  discussed  during  the  period 
of  co-operation,  when  Dr.  Abbot's  ex- 
pert knowledge  was  available,  it  was 
not  found  necessary  in  the  subsequent 
preparation  of  the  Standard  Revised 
New^  Testament  to  modify  the  judgments 
rendered  by  the  whole  Company.  The  Ap- 
pendix of  1 88 1  includes  nearly  all  the  read- 
ings in  regard  to  which  the  American  Re- 
visers differed  from  the  English.  Probably 
the  Greek  Testament  that  most  frequently 
adopts  the  readings  of  the  Revisers,  either 
those  of  the  text  or  of  the  margins,  is  that 
of  Nestle,  the  first  edition  of  which  was 
published  in  1901.  It  presents  a  compro- 
mise text,  but  the  readings  approved  by 
the  Revisers  always  appear,  either  in  its 
32 


The  Greek  Text  of  the  Revisers 

text  or  its  margins.  A  student  of  the 
Greek  Testament  can  easily  determine, 
from  a  comparison  of  the  Revised  New 
Testament  with  this  edition,  what  was  the 
judgment  of  the  Revisers  in  each  case 
where  various  readings  occur. 


33 


SECTION  IV 
The  Emended  Renderings 

The  changes  of  the  Greek  text  accepted 
by  the  Revisers  called  for  corresponding 
changes  in  the  English  dress.  But  the  vast 
majority  of  the  emendations  were  more  cor- 
rect "renderings,"  that  is,  translations  of 
Greek  words  and  phrases,  which  were  un- 
affected by  textual  criticism.  While  both 
Companies  took  the  same  general  attitude 
in  regard  to  inaccuracies  of  the  Author- 
ized Version,  there  was  room  for  differ- 
ence of  judgment  in  many  individual 
cases. 

The  main  reason  for  revision  was  not  a 
literary  one.  Despite  a  few  archaisms  the 
noble  diction  of  the  Authorized  Version  has 
been  preserved  in  the  Revised  Version. 
New  words  have  not  been  introduced,  ex- 
cept when  accuracy  demanded  a  term  un- 
employed in  the  older  versions.  But  while 
the  literary  form  was  constantly  considered, 
the  main  purpose  was  to  present  accurately, 
so  far  as  any  version  can,  the  meaning  of 
35 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

the  New  Testament  writers.  Many  volumes 
have  been  written  on  the  inaccuracies  of  the 
Authorized  Version.  Every  scholarly  com- 
mentator has  indicated  its  failure  to  express 
the  exact  sense  of  the  original.  The  Greek 
language  was  by  no  means  so  well  known 
in  the  days  of  King  James  as  it  is  to-day. 
The  influence  of  Latin,  the  common 
tongue  of  scholars  in  that  age,  modified 
many  of  the  renderings,  especially  those 
of  the  Greek  tenses,  which  do  not 
correspond  exactly  with  those  of  either 
Latin  or  English.  As  there  is  no  article 
in  Latin,  the  very  important  use  of 
the  Greek  definite  article  was  often 
ignored.  Prepositions  were  rendered  in- 
consistently, if  not  carelessly.  Moreover, 
the  Authorized  Version  habitually  renders 
the  same  Greek  term  by  different  English 
words,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  renders  dif- 
ferent Greek  terms  by  the  same  English 
word.  This  made  it  impossible  for  the  Eng- 
lish reader  to  determine  the  correspondences 
in  the  Greek.  English  Concordances  were 
therefore  often  misleading,  and  Harmonies 
of  the  Gospels  utterly  inadequate.  To  se- 
cure, as  far  as  possible,  uniformity  in  ren- 
dering became  a  leading  aim  of  the  Revisers 
36 


The  Emended  Renderirigs 

in  both  England  and  America.  As  an  aid  to 
this,  the  present  writer  prepared  in  an  inter- 
leaved Greek  Concordance  a  list  of  all  the 
changes  made  in  the  first  English  revision. 
This  was  in  constant  use  in  the  sessions  of 
the  American  Company,  and  was  of  value 
during  the  preparation  of  the  American  Re- 
vised Version.  A  similar  use  of  a  Greek 
Concordance  was  made  by  members  of  the 
English  Company  before  the  publication  of 
the  Revised  New  Testament  of  1881. 

But  despite  the  general  agreement  in  re- 
gard to  the  principles  that  should  govern  the 
revision,  at  every  point  there  was  room  for 
discussion.  There  would  be  differing  views 
as  to  the  exact  sense  of  a  given  passage; 
then,  different  opinions asto  the  best  mode 
of  expressing  the  sense.  The  question  often 
arose  whether*  a  rendering  should  stand  in 
the  text  or  be  relegated  to  the  margin.  In 
all  these  discussions  there  was  manifested 
the  utmost  candor.  The  denominations  of 
Christians  represented  in  the  American 
Company  were  the  Baptist,  Congregational- 
ist,  Dutch  Reformed,  Friends,  Methodist 
Episcopal,  Presbyterian,  Protestant  Episco- 
pal, and  Unitarian  ;  yet  rarely  was  there  what 
might  be  termed  a  "theological"  debate. 
37 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

As  an  illustration  of  the  candor  of 
the  Company,  the  treatment  of  the 
passages  referring  to  baptism  may  be 
cited.  Since  the  American  Revised 
Version  was  published  much  criticism 
has  been  offered  on  this  point.  The 
English  Company,  in  Matthew  3:11 
and  similar  passages,  rendered  "with  water," 
placing  in  the  margin  *'Or,  m,"  wherever  the 
Greek  preposition  en  occurs.  The  American 
Company  reached  this  verse  in  the  closing 
session  of  1872.  As  a  class  of  passages  was 
involved,  the  discussion  was  frank  and  full. 
It  was  decided,  by  a  vote  of  7  to  3,  that  the 
text  and  margin  should  exchange  places, 
that  "in"  should  be  the  rendering  in  the  text, 
and  "Or,  zviih''  be  placed  in  the  margin. 
That  decision  was  never  reversed.  It  ap- 
pears in  the  American  Appendix  of  1881, 
and,  of  course,  in  the  Standard  American 
Version  of  1901.  Yet  it  was  asserted  by 
some  that  this  action  was  that  of  the  three 
editors  of  the  Standard  New  Testament, 
also  that  they  were  all  ecclesiastically 
Baptists.  It  is  evident  that  this  decision 
was  made  at  an  early,  and  comparatively 
full,  session  of  the  Company,  and  that  the 
editors  of  the  American  Version  simply 
38 


The  Emended  Renderings 

recorded  the  action  of  the  whole  Com- 
pany— action  taken,  moreover,  nearly 
twenty-nine  years  before. 

In  1872,  when  the  vote  stood  7  to  3,  there 
were  two  Baptist  members  present  and 
voting  with  the  majority.  The  question 
was  settled  by  the  vote  of  representatives 
of  other  denominations.  It  was  felt  that 
the  English  reader  ought  to  know  where 
the  Greek  preposition,  usually  meaning 
*'in,"  occurred  in  connection  with  baptism. 
Whether  immersion  was  practised  by  John 
the  Baptist,  or  whether  it  is  the  proper 
mode,  was  not  discussed  to  any  great  ex- 
tent. The  question  simply  was,  how  shall 
we  most  fairly  present  to  the  English  reader 
the  exact  force-  of  the  original  ? 

Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  presented  a  very  able 
paper  on  the  last  clause  of  Romans  9:5,  ar- 
guing that  it  was  a  doxology  to  God,  and 
not  to  be  referred  to  Christ.  His  view  of  the 
punctuation,  which  is  held  by  many  modern 
scholars,  appears  in  the  margin  of  the 
American  Appendix,  and  is  more  defensible 
than  the  margin  of  the  English  Company. 
In  many  other  cases  Dr.  Abbot  was  more 
conservative  than  the  English  Company. 

The  main  differences  in  the  American 
39 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

Company  were  due  to  the  training  of  the 
members.  The  New  Testament  books  were 
written  in  Hellenistic  Greek,  that  is,  the 
language  of  Greek-speaking  Jews.  It 
differs  somewhat  from  classical  Greek, 
owing  to  well-known  historical  causes.  The 
professors  of  New  Testament  Exegesis,  in 
the  Company,  naturally  placed  greater  em- 
phasis on  these  departures  from  classical 
usage  than  did  those  of  our  number  who  had 
been  teachers  of  classical  Greek.  Some  of 
the  longest  and  most  earnest  discussions 
were  about  such  rnatters,  e.  g.,  whether  the 
absence  of  the  Greek  article  from  the  word 
meaning  "law"  forbade  a  strict  reference  to 
the  Mosaic  law.  In  at  least  twenty  instances 
the  American  Revisers  render  "the  law," 
where  the  English  Company  omits  the  Eng- 
lish article.  For  it  soon  appeared  that  the 
English  Revisers,  doubtless  from  their 
classical  training,  failed  to  recognize  some 
of  the  Hellenistic  peculiarities  which  our 
professors  of  Exegesis  insisted  upon. 

In  every  case  abundant  opportunity  was 
given  for  the  presentation  of  new  sugges- 
tions. It  may  safely  be  affirmed  that  fev^, 
if  any,  of  the  criticisms  made  since  the  Re- 
vision of  1 88 1  were  not  anticipated  in  the 
40 


The  Emended  Renderings 

meetings  of  the  American  Company.  Com- 
petent scholars  since  that  time  have  rarely 
made  suggestions  which  were  not  in  some 
form  or  other  discussed  by  the  Revisers 
themselves  in  reaching  their  decisions.  A 
curious  proof  of  the  general  agreement  of 
the  two  Companies  in  their  judgments  may 
be  stated.  At  one  time,  owing  to  some 
difference  of  opinion  about  the  relations  of 
the  two  Companies  asaffectingthebusiness 
interests  of  the  University  Presses,  the  first 
English  revision  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews was  withheld  from  the  American 
Company.  But  it  was  decided  to  proceed 
independently.  When,  afterwards,  the  work 
of  the  English  Company  on  that  Epistle  was 
transmitted,  it  appeared  that  the  American 
Company  had,  without  knowledge  of  the 
English  revision,  adopted  far  more  than  half 
of  the  emendations,  in  exact  terms,  and  a 
large  proportion  of  the  other  half  were  sub- 
stantiallv  the  same. 


41 


SECTION  V 

The  American  Appendix 

It  had  been  agreed  in  1878  that  the  differ- 
ences of  readings  and  renderings  which  the 
American  Company  deemed  of  special  im- 
portance should  be  included  in  an  Appendix 
to  the  English  Revision.  While  during  the 
successive  reviews  of  the  New  Testament  a 
very  large  proportion  of  the  xA.merican  sug- 
gestions had  been  accepted  by  the  English 
Company,  either  in  exact  terms  or  in  sub- 
stance, there  still  remained  many  points  of 
difference,  both  as  to  certain  classes  of  pas- 
sages, and  as  to  individual  instances.  The 
question  then  arose  in  the  American  Com- 
pany :  What  shall  be  the  extent  of  the  Ap- 
pendix ?  Here  there  was  difference  of  opin- 
ion. The  views  of  the  individual  members 
have  been  preserved  in  a  memorandum  by 
Dr.  Schaff,  and  published  by  his  son  in  the 
*'Life  of  Philip  Schaff,"  pp.  381,  382.  The 
majority  favored  reducing  the  Appendix,  so 
as  to  further  the  success  of  the  volume.  But 
some  felt  that  the  Appendix  should  include 
43 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

nearly  all  the  changes  preferred  by  the 
American  Company.  Dr.  Schaff  himself 
suggested  "a  small  Appendix  for  the  author- 
ized edition  of  the  Revision,  and  a  separate 
publication  of  all  our  changes,  which  shall 
perpetuate  the  results  of  our  ten  years' 
labor  for  the  use  of  scholars."  The  de- 
cision to  reduce  the  Appendix  involved  a 
nev^  review  of  the  entire  New  Testament, 
to  determine  what  readings  and  renderings 
were  "of  special  importance."  As  the  action 
in  regard  to  the  Appendix  was  taken  July  7, 
1880,  and  the  English  Company  was  nearly 
ready  to  publish  the  Revised  New  Testa- 
ment, the  preparation  of  the  Appendix  was 
rapidly  pushed.  A  committee  prepared  a 
list,  which  was  printed  for  the  use  of  the  Re- 
visers, comprising  a  ''Basis  for  the  Appen- 
dix." Yet  despite  the  great  care  given  to 
the  task,  the  Preface  to  the  American 
Standard  Revised  New  Testament 
frankly  states  that  the  Appendix  to  the 
edition  of  1881  was  ''hastily  compiled 
under  pressure  from  the  University 
Presses."  Still  it  contains  very  few 
errors.  It  will  be  seen  from  the  dis- 
cussion above  referred  to  that  there  was 
already  present  in  the  minds  of  the  Ameri- 
44 


The  America7i  Appendix 

can  Revisers  the  desire  to  publish  ultimately, 
when  the  agreement  with  the  University 
Presses  permitted,  an  American  Revision, 
which  should  contain  many  of  the  deviations 
that  were  excluded  from  the  Appendix  by 
its  necessarily  limited  compass.  In  May, 
1 88 1,  the  Revised  New  Testament  was 
placed  on  sale,  in  both  England  and 
America,  and  within  a  year  probably  three 
million  copies  were  sold.  Some  American 
reprints  appeared,  but  for  these  the  Ameri- 
can Company  had  no  responsibility,  the 
authorized  English  editions  containing  a 
voucher  from  Drs.  Schaff  and  Day,  the 
officers  of  the  American  Committee. 

The  Appendix  consists  of  two  parts: 
The  first,  entitled  "Classes  of  Passages," 
applies  to  changes  affecting  a  large  number 
of  cases ;  the  second  contains  a  list  of  spe- 
cific changes,  either  of  readings  or  render- 
ings, and  is  arranged  seriatim,  with  refer- 
ence to  books,  chapters  and  verses.  Occa- 
sionally two  or  three  similar  passages  are 
added  to  the  first  instance.  These  specific 
changes  are  about  three  hundred  in  number, 
having  been  selected  as  "of  special  impor- 
tance." Under  "Classes  of  Passages,"  thir- 
teen in  all,  the  changes  indicated  are  much 
45 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

more  numerous.  The  titles  of  the  several 
books  are  modified.  The  use  of  ''which," 
where  persons  are  referred  to,  is  disap- 
proved; "who"  or  "that"  to  be  substituted. 
This  affects  several  hundred  places,  and  it 
was  found,  during  the  preparation  of  the 
American  Revised  Version,  that  it  was  often 
difficult  to  determine  whether  "who"  or 
"that"  should  be  preferred  in  a  particular 
passage.  The  Appendix  substituted  "shil- 
ling" for  "penny,"  and  "demon"  for  "devil," 
wheie  demoniacal  possession  is  referred  to. 
All  the  changes  included  in  "Classes  of 
Passages"  have,  of'  course,  been  adopted  in 
the  American  Revised  Version. 

Of  the  specific  changes,  many  have  been 
approved  by  the  best  English  scholars. 
Bishop  Ellicott,  the  chairman  of  the  English 
New  Testament  Company,  published  a  few 
years  ago  a  commentary  on  First  Corin- 
thians, and  in  his  notes  he  accepts  more 
than  half  of  the  suggestions  of  the  Ameri- 
can Appendix,  usually  word  for  word.  But 
the  good  Bishop  does  not  allude  to  the  fact 
that  his  American  co-laborers  agree  with 
him.  It  may  be  noted  that  the  American 
Appendix,  as  a  whole,  presents  fewer 
archaic  terms  and  forms  than  the  English 
46 


The  American  Appendix 

Revision.  This  tendency  was  still  more 
prominent  in  the  suggestions  which  were 
not  included  in  the  Appendix. 

As  the  preferences  of  the  American  Com- 
pany published  in  the  Revision  of  1881  have 
been  incorporated  in  the  American  Stand- 
ard edition  of  1901,  the  details  in  regard  to 
the  Appendix  can  be  learned  only  from  the 
English  editions  of  the  University  Presses. 

One  fact  must  be  recorded  here,  because 
of  its  bearing  upon  the  American  Revised 
Version.  In  the  Preface  to  the  edition  of 
1 90 1  it  is  stated :  'The  list  of  passages  in 
which  the  New  Testament  Company  dis- 
sented from  the  decision^  of  their  English 
associates,  when  it  was  transmitted  to  them, 
bore  the  heading,  'The  American  New  Tes- 
tament Revision  Company,  having  in  many 
cases  yielded  their  preference  for  certain 
readings  and  renderings,  present  the  follow- 
ing instances  in  which  they  differ  from  the 
English  Company,  as  in  their  view  of 
sufficient  importance  to  be  appended  to 
the  revision,  in  accordance  with  an  under- 
standing between  the  Companies.' "  It 
was  therefore  somewhat  of  a  surprise  to 
find,  when  the  edition  of  1881  reached  this 
country,  that  the  heading  of  the  Ameri- 
47 


TJie  Revised  New   Testament 

can  Appendix  was  in  this  brief  form : 
"List  of  readings  and  renderings  pre- 
ferred by  the  American  Committee,  re- 
corded at  their  desire." 

This  substitution  was  made  without  any 
consultation  with  the  American  Company. 
It  may  have  been  occasioned  by  a  desire  for 
brevity ;  but,  whatever  the  reason  may  have 
been,  the  pubHshed  heading  gave  an  errone- 
ous impression,  suggesting  that  the  only 
points  of  difference  between  the  two  com- 
panies were  those  included  in  the  Appendix. 
While  there  was  no  evidence  of  any  intent 
to  thus  minimize  the  labors  of  the  Ameri- 
can Company,  the  effect  was  to  strengthen 
the  desire  to  publish  a  distinctively  Ameri- 
can Revised  Bible,  at  the  expiration  of  four- 
teen years,  when  such  action  would  be  per- 
missible in  accordance  with  the  agreement 
made  with  the  English  Company  and  the 
University  Presses. 

There  was  no  way  of  correcting  the  pub- 
lished heading,  for  millions  of  copies  had 
been  printed  in  England,  and  the  English 
Company  had  dissolved,  leaving  the  Uni- 
versity Presses  as  the  only  authority  to 
which  appeal  could  be  made.  The  American 
Company  retained  its  corporate  existence, 
48 


The  American  Appendix 

and  wisely  decided  to  make  no  protest,  fear- 
ing the  effect  upon  the  success  of  the  Re- 
vision. With  this  incident  the  co-operation 
with  the  EngHsh  Company  closed.  The  re- 
lations with  that  body  had  been  cordial,  and 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  Eng- 
lish scholars  appreciated  the  labors  of  their 
brethren  in  America. 


49 


SECTION  VI 

The  Interval,   1881-1897 

The  agreement  with  the  University 
Presses  and  the  Enghsh  Companies  con- 
tained the  stipulation  that  the  American 
Committee  "will  do  what  lies  in  their  power 
to  promote  the  freest  circulation  of  the 
editions  of  the  University  Presses  in 
the  United  States,  not  only  by  abstain- 
ing from  issuing  any  edition  of  their 
own,  but  by  recognizing  the  editions 
of  the  University  Presses  as  the  authorized 
editions,  and  in  all  proper  ways  favoring 
such  issues  and  discouraging  irresponsi- 
ble issues,  for  the  period  of  fourteen 
years."  This  stipulation  was  faithfully  ad- 
hered to.  Announcement  was  made,  prior 
to  the  publication  in  1881,  that  the  American 
Committee  recognized  only  the  editions  pub- 
lished or  approved  by  the  University  Presses 
as  the  authorized  editions.  A  statement  to 
this  effect,  signed  by  the  oflBcers  of  the 
committee,  was  printed  in  the  edition  of 
1881.  Of  course  unauthorized  editions  ap- 
51 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

peared  in  the  United  States,  but  the  com- 
mercial interests  of  the  University  Presses 
were  upheld,  as  far  as  possible,  by  the 
American  Revisers. 

Yet  the  agreement  implied  the  future  pub- 
lication of  an  American  Revision.  Strictly 
interpreted,  it  v^ould  have  permitted  the 
American  Company  to  publish  the  New 
Testament  in  1895.  But  as  the  Revised  Old 
Testament  did  not  appear  until  1885,  it  was 
felt  that  it  would  be  more  honorable  to  wait 
until  fourteen  years  after  that  date. 

As  the  agreement  with  Messrs.  Thomas 
Nelson  and  Sons,  the  publishers  of  the 
American  Standard  Revised  Version,  was 
made  June  24,  1897,  that  date  may  be  re- 
garded as  beginning  the  final  preparation  of 
the  American  Revised  Version. 

But  the  American  Revisers  were  not  idle 
during  the  interval,  since  they  not  only  kept 
up  their  organization,  but  held  annual  meet- 
ings imtil  1 89 1. 

At  one  of  these  meetings  (1885)  action 
was  taken  in  regard  to  the  future  publica- 
tion, though  definite  plans  were  not  yet 
deemed  advisable.  Subsequently  Drs. 
Thayer  and  Riddle  were  appointed  a  com- 
mittee to  consider  the  details  in  regard  to  the 
52 


The  Interval,   i88i-i8gj 

publication  of  the  New  Testament,  and  they 
met  for  conference  several  times  at  Castine, 
Maine.  Some  preliminary  work  was  done 
during  the  following  years.  For  example: 
Dr.  Thayer  prepared  a  list  of  all  the  cases 
where  **which"  was  applied  to  persons  in 
the  Revised  Version  of  1881.  These  were 
classified  as  follows :  passages  where  "who" 
is  obviously  preferable;  those  where  *'that" 
seems  more  appropriate ;  doubtful  cases. 
The  list  was  printed  and  sent  to  the  surviv- 
ing members  of  the  Company,  who  met  at 
the  house  of  Dr.  SchafT  in  New  York,  to  dis- 
cuss the  instances  thus  presented.  As  these 
were  several  hundred  in  number,  and  a  de- 
cision in  many  cases  was  delicate  and  dif- 
ficult, no  small  labor  was  involved.  The 
American  Appendix  of  1881  proposed  in 
general  to  substitute  'Svho"  or  ''that"  for 
''which"  when  applied  to  persons ;  hence 
only  the  American  Revisers  were  competent 
to  decide  in  what  instances  one  or  the  other 
should  be  substituted.  Some  unauthorized 
publications  in  America  had  attempted  to 
substitute  the  preferences  of  the  Appendix 
in  the  text,  but  the  results  were  misleading 
and  sometimes  erroneous. 

During  these  years  the  Revisers  naturally 
53 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

paid  some  attention  to  the  flood  of  criticism 
which  the  Revised  Version  encountered. 
While  most  of  the  unfavorable  judgments 
expressed  were  due  to  ignorance  or  preju- 
dice, there  were  many  intelligent  criticisms 
deserving,  and  receiving,  due  consider- 
ation. The  attitude  of  the  public  toward 
the  Revision  of  1881  had  some  lessons  for 
those  who  were  to  prepare  the  American 
Revised  Version. 

The  method  of  publication  caused  some 
perplexity.  The  expenses  of  the  American 
Companies  during  the  period  of  co-oper- 
ation had  been  met  by  private  subscription, 
and  the  additional  outlay  in  the  preparation 
of  the  American  Revised  Version  might 
have  been  provided  in  the  same  way. 

But  this  plan  would  have  left  the  edition 
unprotected  by  copyright,  and  would 
have  opened  the  way  for  unauthorized 
and  incorrect  issues,  as  in  1881.  Still 
the  Committee  would  have  preferred  this 
method,  could  the  necessary  funds  have 
been  provided.  At  the  same  time  it  was 
evident  that  few  publishing  houses  would 
undertake  the  publication  unless  protected 
by  copyright.  As  the  years  passed,  death  re- 
moved many  of  the  New  Testament  Com- 
54 


The  Interval,   iSSi-iSgj 

pany;  most  of  the  survivors  were  burdened 
with  years  or  with  exacting  duties.  It 
seemed  increasingly  difficult  for  them  to 
undertake  the  responsibility  of  publishing  as 
well  as  preparing  the  proposed  American 
Revised  Version. 

As  Dr.  Schaff  had  been  so  successful  in 
soliciting  funds  for  the  expenses  prior  to 
1881,  both  companies  instinctively  looked 
to  him  for  leadership  in  the  new  enterprise. 

He  maintained  his  interest  to  the  last,  at- 
tending a  meeting  of  the  New  Testament 
Company,  at  New  Haven,  in  June,  1893, 
only  four  months  before  his  lamented  death, 
October  20  of  that  year.  He  made  some 
suggestions  at  this  meeting  which  were  fol- 
lowed in  the  preparation  of  the  new  edition. 

But  the  loss  of  this  leader  was  a  great 
discouragement  to  the  few  surviving  mem- 
bers of  the  committee.  Professor  Thayer, 
the  secretary  of  the  New  Testament  Com- 
pany, under  date  of  August  19,  1895,  wrote 
to  Dr.  David  S.  Schafif  (Life  of  Philip 
Schaflf,  p.  387)  :  "With  your  father's  death 
the  prospect  of  success  in  the  solicitation  of 
funds  disappeared,  and  our  diminishing 
numbers  and  taxed  leisure  have  held  the 
whole  project  in  suspense  to  this  hour." 
55 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

There  was,  however,  no  thought  of  abandon- 
ing the  project.  At  the  date  of  Professor 
Thayer's  letter  only  three  members  of  the 
New  Testament  Company  survived:  Drs. 
Dwight,  Thayer  and  Riddle,  and  these  three 
edited  the  American  Standard  edition  of 
the  New  Testament.  It  was  felt  by  all  of 
them  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  secure 
a  responsible  publishing  firm  that  would 
provide  the  necessary  expenses  of  prepa- 
ration, and  in  return  be  granted  the  copy- 
right. 

Finally  (and  fortunately  it  has  proved) 
Messrs.  Thomas  Nelson  and  Sons  entered 
into  negotiations  with  the  Committee.  In 
April,  1897,  a  meeting  was  held  at  the  Bible 
House,  New  York,  to  confer  with  the  New 
York  representative  of  this  publishing  firm. 
Several  details  were  fully  discussed.  It  was 
decided,  at  the  desire  of  the  Messrs.  Nelson, 
that  a  new  and  complete  set  of  references  be 
prepared.  The  size  of  the  volume,  the  ar- 
rangement of  marginal  readings  and  render- 
ings, and  of  Old  Testament  citations,  were 
virtually  agreed  upon.  At  this  conference 
the  publishers  expressed  their  willingness, 
not  only  to  defray  the  necessary  expenses  of 
the  Revisers,  incident  to  the  preparation  of 
56 


The  Interval,   iSSi-iSgy 

the  volume,  but  also  to  make  some  pecuniary 
compensation  to  the  surviving  members. 
When  this  proposal  was  made,  Professor 
Thayer,  whose  duties  in  preparing  the  Re- 
vised New  Testament  were  likely  to  be  most 
onerous,  at  once  replied:  "If  I  took  money 
for  this  work,  I  would  be  ashamed  to  meet 
President  Woolsey  in  Heaven  !" 

The  arduous  labors  that  followed,  prob- 
ably the  most  exacting  in  the  entire  history 
of  the  Revision,  were  performed  gratui- 
tously. 


57 


SECTION  VII 

The  Preparation  of  the 
American  Revised  New  Testament 

On  the  24th  of  June,  1897,  the  formal 
agreement  with  Messrs.  Thomas  Nelson 
and  Sons  was  consummated  in  New 
York,  and  a  contract  made  between 
the  publishers  and  the  surviving  mem- 
bers of  the  two  Companies.  The 
latter  agreed  to  prepare  the  revised  English 
text,  to  supply  headings  and  references,  to 
read  the  proofs.  The  publishers  agreed  to 
bear  the  necessary  incidental  expenses,  and, 
in  view  of  the  gratuitous  services  of  the  re- 
visers, they  promised  to  issue  some  editions 
of  the  book  at  a  price  that  would  put  it 
within  the  reach  of  the  mass  of  readers. 
The  first  edition  was  to  be  in  small  quarto 
form,  with  the  marginal  readings  and  ren- 
derings on  a  wide  outer  margin.  Verse 
numbers  were  to  be  inserted  in  the  text. 
The  references  were  to  be  placed  in  a  central 
column.  An  Appendix  was  to  be  prepared, 
in  which  should  be  included  all  the  points  of 
59 


The  Revised  New  Testa^nent 

difference  between  the  Revision  of  1881-5 
and  the  American  Standard  edition.*  The 
copyright  was  accorded  to  the  publishers, 
and  a  note,  signed  by  the  secretaries  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  Companies, 
was  to  be  printed  in  every  copy,  certifying 
that  the  editions  published  by  Messrs. 
Thomas  Nelson  and  Sons  ''are  the  only 
editions  authorized  by  the  American  Com- 
mittee of  Revision." 

That  very  day  the  surviving  members  of 
the  New  Testament  Company  began  the 
work  of  preparation.  The  first  step  was  to 
go  over  the  entire  New  Testament,  as  re- 
vised in  1 88 1,  noting  all  the  suggestions 
made  in  the  American  Company  during  the 
years  1872-81.  As  Professor  Thayer  had 
full  records  of  the  earlier  meetings,  often  in- 
cluding the  suggestions  of  individual  mem- 
bers, even  when  not  adopted  by  the  Com- 
pany, it  was  possible  to  make  a  review 
of  all  the  work  previously  done ;  and  to 
base  the  new  Version  upon  the  judg- 
ment of  the  entire  Company  as  thus 
recorded.      The    three     survivors     really 

*This  Appendix  appears  only    in    the    quarto    edition, 
the  first  one  published,   which   contains  also  the   English 
Prefaces  of  1881-5.     But  the  later  American  editions  omit 
both  the  Appendix  and  the  English  Prefaces. 
60 


The  Preparation 

represented  their  co-laborers,  and  the  results 
are  in  no  sense  merely  the  opinions  of  the 
trio  that  remained  alive  in  1897.  The  many 
emendations,  forwarded  at  different  times  to 
the  English  Company,  but  not  accepted  by 
them  or  included  in  the  Appendix  of  1881, 
were  all  reconsidered.  Not  only  so,  but 
numerous  questions  of  punctuation,  of  para- 
graphing, and  of  spelling,  were  discussed. 
It  was,  of  course,  necessary  that  the  three 
editors  should  meet  several  times.  As  all 
were  actively  engaged  in  teaching,  these 
meetings  usually  occurred  in  summer  or 
during  the  Christmas  recess,  ordinarily  con- 
tinuing for  a  week.  As  the  three  had 
been  associated  so  long,_  it  was  possible 
to  accomplish  a  good  deal  by  corre- 
spondence, especially  as  the  views  of 
each  on  important  points  were  already 
known  to  the  others.  In  the  spring  of 
1898  this  review  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  completed,  and  the  judg- 
ment of  the  editors  put  on  record.  Pro- 
fessor Thayer,  according  to  the  usages  of 
the  Harvard  Divinity  School,  had  a  Sabbati- 
cal year  during  1898  and  1899.  He  pro- 
posed to  visit  his  son-in-law,  Professor  Cas- 
par Rene  Gregory  (the)  editor  of  Tischen- 
61 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

dorf's  Prolegomena),  at  Leipsic,  Germany, 
and  while  there  to  select  the  references  and 
headings  for  the  new  edition.  This  exacting 
work  he  faithfully  and  successfully  prose- 
cuted. The  references  in  the  ordinary 
editions  of  the  Authorized  Version  are,  in 
many  cases,  worthless  or  misleading.  The 
new  references  were  to  be  more  helpful  in 
regard  to  the  use  of  words,  and,  by  discrimi- 
nating terms,  such  as  "See,"  and  "Com- 
pare," to  indicate  the  bearing  of  the  passages 
cited  upon  the  place  to  which  the  reference 
was  prefixed.  Parallel  passages  were  to  be 
distinguished  by  italics.  All  this  called  for 
minute  care  as  well  as  wide  Scriptural 
knowledge.  The  mechanical  execution  of 
the  plan  called  for  much  skill.  Professor 
Thayer  sent  the  "copy,"  with  pasted  slips 
containing  the  references,  to  his  colleagues 
by  instalments.  The  other  editors  exam- 
ined and  verified  the  lists,  occasionally 
discussing  the  propriety  of  using  a  given 
passage.  All  this  labor  was  not  without  its 
influence  upon  the  final  judgment  of  the 
editors. 

In  the  midst  of  this  arduous  work  some- 
thing occurred  which  greatly  surprised  the 
American  Revisers,  and  led  to  a  controversy 
62 


The  Preparation 

in  print,  mainly  in  the  columns  of  The  Sun- 
day School  Times.*  It  is  necessary  to 
allude  to  this,  without  reopening  the  contro- 
versy. The  University  Presses,  at  the  close 
of  the  year  1898,  just  before  the  expiration 
of  the  fourteen  years  agreed  upon,  published 
an  edition  of  the  Revised  Version,  in  which 
the  preferences  printed  in  the  Appendix  of 
1 88 1 -5  were  incorporated  in  the  text  and 
another  Appendix  substituted,  which  gave 
the  corresponding  readings  and  renderings 
of  the  English  Companies.  The  edition  con- 
tained an  admirable  selection  of  references, 
and  was  fairly  accurate  in  its  use  of  the 
American  preferences.  But  the  American 
Revisers  had  received  no  hint  of  the  pur- 
pose to  publish  such  an  edition,  though  some 
years  had  evidently  been  required  to 
prepare  it  for  publication.  There  can 
be  no  question  that  the  University 
Presses  had  the  legal  right  to  issue 
such  a  volume.  It  is  altogether  probable 
that  it  was  designed,  in  some  way,  to 
protect  the  English  copyright,  of  which 
they  were  the  owners.    But  the  appearance 

•Letter  from  Prof.  Mead.  March  ii.  1899;  letter  from 
Prof.  Thayer,  March  18,  1899:  letter  from  Mr.  Frowde, 
and   others,    with    editorial   comments,    April    15,    1899. 

63 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

of  the  book  at  that  time  created  the  impres- 
sion that  this  was  the  American  Revised 
Version  which  the  pubHc  had  been  awaiting 
for  so  many  years.  This  impression  was 
furthered  by  the  fact  that  some  booksellers 
advertised  it  as  "the  American  Revised  Ver- 
sion." The  protests  from  members  of  the 
American  Companies  led  to  the  withdrawal 
of  this  title.  It  was  intimated  that  the 
Presses  were  not  aware  of  the  purpose  of 
the  American  Revisers  to  publish  an  edition 
of  their  own ;  but  this  purpose  had  been  fre- 
quently announced,  and  certain  facts,  pre- 
sented by  Professor  Thayer,  indicate  that 
the  University  Presses  should  have  been 
fully  aware  of  the  proposed  publication 
in  America.  The  discussions  of  1899, 
however,  made  clear  the  character  of  this 
English  edition,  and  while  it  remains  a 
useful  help  for  the  Biblical  scholar,  it  is 
not  "The  American  Revised  Version."  It 
had  little  or  no  efifect  upon  the  success  of 
the  latter,  though  anticipating  it  by  two 
years. 

On  the  return  of  Professor  Thayer  from 

Europe  in  1899  the  editors  met  for  a  final 

review  of  the  entire  work.     The  text,  the 

margins,  the  headings,  the  references,  the 

64 


The  Preparation 

paragraphs,  the  punctuation,  were  discussed 
afresh  and  in  detail.  The  knowledge  that 
the  edition  was  soon  to  appear  called  forth 
a  large  number  of  suggestions  from  many 
correspondents.  Each  of  these  was  duly 
considered,  though  very  few  of  them  were 
accepted  by  the  editors,  who  had  already, 
at  some  stage  of  their  labors,  taken  action 
on  the  points  presented  by  these  correspond- 
ents. Arrangements  were  also  made  for  the 
Appendix,  showing  the  divergences  from 
the  Version  of  1881,  for  the  Preface  and 
title-page;  and  certain  details  in  printing 
the  poetic  parts  of  the  Book  of  Revelation 
were  agreed  upon. 

The  last  meeting  was  held  on  April  19, 
1900,  and  thc."copy"  at  once  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  printers. 

The  proofreading  was  exacting  work. 
The  proofs  were  submitted  three  times  to 
each  of  the  editors,  and  they  interchanged 
the  corrected  proofs  before  returning  them 
to  the  printer.  Every  page  contained  five 
or  six  different  kinds  of  type,  and  the  cor- 
rect position  of  the  reference  letters  and 
numbers  called  for  judgment  as  well  as 
constant  care.  By  June,  190T,  the  body  of 
the  work,  the  prefaces  and  title-pages  were 
65 


TJie  Revised  New  Testament 

in  press.  Drs.  Dwight  and  Thayer  then 
sailed  for  Europe,  leaving  the  present  writer 
to  carry  the  Appendix  through  the  press. 
The  last  proof  of  the  last  page  was  cor- 
rected in  the  room  at  Castine,  Maine,  where 
these  lines  are  penned,  and  sent  off  July  15, 
1 90 1.  Twenty-nine  years  had  well-nigh 
elapsed  since  the  American  Company  began 
its  work. 

The  American  Standard  Edition  of  the 
Revised  Version  of  the  Bible  was  placed 
on  sale  August  26,  1901. 


66 


SECTION  VIII 

The  Reception  of  the  American 
Revised  Bible 

The  reception  of  the  American  Revised 
Version  was  a  cordial  one,  on  the  part  of 
nearly  all  Biblical  scholars,  in  the  United 
States.  The  Bible-reading  public  had  been 
prepared  to  welcome  it.  The  twenty  years 
since  the  edition  of  1881  appeared  had  edu- 
cated multitudes  as  to  the  infelicities,  and  in- 
accuracies of  the  Authorized  Version.  The 
prejudices  which  assailed  the  earlier  edition 
had  been  to  a  large  extent  removed.  The 
constant  use  of  the  Revised  Version  in  Sun- 
day-schools and  Bible  schools  had  raised 
up  a  generation  of  readers  that  had  heard 
something  of  textual  criticism  and  had  dis- 
covered some  of  the  reasons  for  changes  that 
had  been  pronounced  "needless"  or  "unwar- 
ranted." There  was,  of  course,  a  renewal  of 
the  accusation  of  "bad  English,"  resting  on 
the  assumption  that  King  James'  Version 
remained  the  absolute  standard  of  correct 
English.  In  the  Theoloc^ical  Seminaries 
67 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

and  other  schools  for  Christian  workers 
there  was  an  immediate  welcome.  The 
reviews  in  periodicals  of  every  kind  were 
favorable,  whenever  penned  by  a  compe- 
tent and  discriminating  contributor.  It 
was  soon  necessary  to  issue  other  editions, 
conformed  to  the  quarto  Standard  edition. 
To  some  of  these  the  publishers  appended 
maps  and  other  helps  for  the  Bible 
student,  including  a  condensed  Concord- 
ance. The  New  Testament  was  soon 
issued  separately,  and  the  promise  of 
cheap  editions  was  fulfilled. 

In  England  the  circulation  of  the  book 
was  necessarily  restricted,  but  many  favor- 
able comments  have  been  published  from 
time  to  time  in  Great  Britain. 

In  some  parts  of  the  United  States  where 
the  mode  of  baptism  has  been  a  prominent 
topic  of  controversy,  the  Revisers  were 
sharply  criticized  for  their  rendering,  "in 
water."  The  facts  in  regard  to  this  render- 
ing have  already  been  fully  stated  (§  4). 

Very  soon  after  the  appearance  of  the 
American  Revised  Bible  efforts  were  made 
in  several  ecclesiastical  bodies  to  secure  an 
official  approval  of  it,  or  at  least  a  permis- 
sion to  use  it  in  public  worship.  In  many 
68 


The  Reception 

Protestant  churches  such  a  permission  is  not 
necessary.  Indeed  Bishop  Westcott  stated 
in  one  of  his  pubHshed  lectures  on  the  Re- 
vised Version  that,  if  a  parish  clergyman 
chose  to  use  it  in  reading  the  appointed 
Scripture  lessons,  his  bishop  would  have  no 
authority  to  forbid  the  practice.  The  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  took  action  which  implied  the  pro- 
priety of  revision,  but  did  not  permit  the 
use  of  the  Version  of  1881-85.  A  commit- 
tee of  the  General  Convention  prepared  a 
volume  with  alternate  renderings,  taken 
mainly  from  the  English  Revised  Version, 
to  be  used  at  the  discretion  of  the  officiating 
clergyman.  This  v^as  prepared  before  the 
Revision  of  19.01  appeared.  This  volume  is 
not  convenient  for  use.  and  serves  to 
weaken  the  authority  of  the  old  Version 
without  upholding  that  of  the  Revision. 
Its  only  practical  value  is  in  sustaining  the 
authority  of  the  ecclesiastical  body  that 
issued  it. 

The  Revisers  have  never  urged  any  eccle- 
siastical approval  of  the  American  Revised 
Bible,  preferring  that  it  should  win  its  way 
upon  its  intrinsic  merits  and  not  by  the 
pressure  of  authority.  Still,  in  view  of  the 
6q 


The  Revised  Nezu  Testament 

scruples  of  many  ministers  and  the  prej- 
udice of  many  more  laymen  in  regard  to  the 
use  of  it,  there  is  a  propriety  in  formal 
action  such  as  has  been  taken  by  a  number 
of  ecclesiastical  bodies.  For  example,  the 
Presbyterian  Church  (North)  has  author- 
ized the  use  of  the  American  Revised  Bible 
in  public  worship.  Yet  the  whole  family  of 
Presbyterian  Churches  has  been  using  King 
James'  Version  without  any  ecclesiastical 
sanction.  The  Directory  for  Worship,  in 
the  seventeenth  century,  only  prescribed 
that  the  Scriptures  be  read  in  public  wor- 
ship, from  "the  most  approved  translation." 
At  that  time  the  Geneva  Version  was  prob- 
ably used  by  the  great  majority  of  the  con- 
gregations. It  would  have  been  very  inju- 
dicious to  direct  that  King  James'  Ver- 
sion be  read  in  the  churches.  So  that, 
as  a  matter  of  enactment,  the  American 
Revised  Bible  is  the  only  one  ever  "author- 
ized" by  any  Presbyterian  churches. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  there  is  some 
doubt  as  to  whether  the  term  "Authorized" 
is  properly  applied  to  King  James'  Version. 
While  the  title-page,  in  English  editions, 
contains  the  words  "appointed  to  be  read 
in  churches,"  there  is  no  official  document 
70 


The  Reception 

now  in  existence  which  contains  a  record 
of  such  appointment.  The  official  docu- 
ments that  presumably  gave  the  authoriza- 
tion were  destroyed  by  fire  in  1618.  At 
all  events  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  con- 
tains selections  from  the  older  versions, 
notably  the  Psalter  from  Coverdale's  trans- 
lation. As  late  as  1650  the  Bishops'  Bible 
was  used  in  the  pulpit  of  the  First  Church 
of  Hartford,  Connecticut,  and  editions  of 
the  Geneva  Bible  were  printed  in  England 
as  late  as  1644.  It  is  probable  that  the 
American  Revised  Bible  is  now  used  more 
extensively  in  the  United  States  than  King 
James'  Version  was  in  England  seven 
years  after  its  appearance. 

Certainly  there  has  not  been  any  such 
scholarly  and  determined  opposition  to  the 
former  as  was  encountered  by  the  latter.  It 
is  unwise  to  forecast  the  ultimate  result; 
but  the  present  situation  indicates  a  grow- 
ing future  acceptance.  Certainly  in  all 
earnest  Biblical  study,  whether  clerical  or 
lay,  the  American  Revised  Bible  must  and 
will  be  recognized,  and  its  authority, 
whether  formally  and  officially  endorsed  or 
not,  will  be  regarded  as  superior  to  that  of 
the  older  versions.  It  is  significant  that  the 
71 


TJie  Revised  New  Testament 

American.  Bible  Society  has  arranged  with 
Messrs.  Nelson  and  Sons  to  place  the 
new  Version  side  by  side  with  its  own 
issues.  Nearly  all  the  denominational 
boards  of  publication  aid  in  its  circula- 
tion. The  journals  devoted  to  Sunday- 
school  literature  almost  invariably  print 
the  text  of  the  lessons  from  the  American 
Revised  Bible,  usually  in  addition  to 
the  text  from  the  Authorized  Version. 
The  lesson  helps  necessarily  recognize 
the  superior  value  of  the  new  renderings. 
All  this  tends  to  establish  the  authority 
of  the  new  Version,  and  to  dissipate  the 
prejudice  that  has  so  greatly  hindered  the 
use  of  it  in  public  worship.  It  is  frequently 
said :  The  Revised  Version  is  very  useful 
for  purposes  of  study,  but  the  Authorized 
Version  should  be  retained  for  devotional 
purposes.  But  this  implies  that  devotion  is 
solely  a  matter  of  association,  and  is  not 
furthered  by  accurate  knowledge  of  wdiat 
God  has  caused  to  be  written  for  our  learn- 
ing. Granting  all  the  religious  influence  of 
memory  and  familiarity,  it  would  seem  that 
knowledge  of  the  exact  sense  of  the 
Scripture  must  in  the  end  be  most  con- 
ducive to  an  intelligent  devotion. 
72 


SECTION  IX 

The  Distinctive  Features  of 

THE  American  Revised  New  Testament 

The  Version  of  the  New  Testament  pub- 
Hshed  in  1881  presents  the  main  features 
of  superiority  to  the  Authorized  Version, 
and  includes  a  great  deal  of  the  work  of  the 
American  Company.  This  has  already 
been  stated,  but  it  may  be  well  to  indicate 
the  points  of  superiority  common  to  that 
Version  and  the  Version  of  1901,  before 
setting  forth  the  distinctive  features  of  the 
latter. 

I.  The  Greek  text.  See  Section  3.  The 
two  Versions  are  based  upon  the  critical 
text  of  recent  editors,  and  are  in  substan- 
tial agreement.  The  number  of  readings 
differing  from  the  "Received  Text,"  which 
were  accepted  by  both  Companies,  is 
nearly  six  thousand.  Of  course  most  of 
these  are  slight  verbal  changes,  yet  nearly  all 
affect  to  some  extent  the  English  form.  The 
two  Versions  differ  in  about  twenty-five 
instances.  This  includes  the  cases  where 
73 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

the  reading  in  the  text  and  that  in  the 
margin  exchange  places.  The  more  im- 
portant passages  are:  Luke  15:16;  John 
10:8;  14:14;  17:24;  Acts  13:18;  16:13; 
20:28;  (''of  the  Lord"  in  text,  instead  of 
"of  God");  Romans  4:1;  5:1;  i  Corin- 
thians 2  :i ;  7 :33,  34 ;  Ephesians  1:15;  He- 
brews 4:2;  8:8;  10:1,  34;  12:34.  It  thus 
appears  that  both  Versions  are  very  much 
closer  to  the  original  text  than  the  Au- 
thorized Version,  or  the  Latin  Vulgate. 
Both  omit  the  subscriptions  at  the  close 
of  the  Epistles,  since  these  have  no  early 
support,  and  are  in  some  cases  incorrect. 

2.  The  diction  of  the  two  versions  is 
well-nigh  identical.  A  very  few  words  are 
peculiar  to  each.  "Apparition"  occurs  in 
the  EngHsh  Version  (Matt.  14:26;  Mark 
6:49),  but  for  this  the  American  Revision 
substitutes  "ghost,"  which  is  allowable,  be- 
cause that  term  as  applied  to  the  third  Per- 
son of  the  Trinity  has  been  replaced  by 
"Spirit"  in  the  American  Version.  The 
English  remains  that  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  though  many  archaisms  have  dis- 
appeared. 

3.  Uniformity  of  rendering.  In  this 
respect  the  two  Versionswere  prepared  on 

74 


The  Distinctive  Features 

a  common  principle,  and  differ  very  slightly 
in  the  application  of  it.  During  the  period 
of  co-operation  with  its  interchange  of 
views,  each  successive  review  resulted  in 
greater  uniformity. 

4.  Tenses.  In  rendering  the  tenses  of  the 
Greek  verb  both  Versions  are  far  more 
accurate  than  the  Authorized  Version, 
which  is  often  misleading.  While  all 
the  distinctions  of  the  Greek  cannot  be 
indicated  in  English,  owing  to  the  different 
theories  on  which  the  tenses  in  the  two 
languages  are  constructed,  great  improve- 
ment is  manifest  in  both  the  Revised  Ver- 
sions. The  Greek  tenses  primarily  repre- 
sent modes  of  action;  the  English  tenses 
represent  time*;  hence  the  latter  do  not 
always  fairly  reproduce  the  sense  of  the 
former.  The  use  of  participles  in  Greek  is 
peculiar,  and  a  failure  to  recognize  this  led 
to  serious  mistakes  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion. For  example:  In  Acts  1:8  and  19:2 
the  Revised  Version  renders:  "Ye  shall 
receive  power,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
come  upon  you,"  and  "Did  ye  receive  the 
Holy  Spirit  when  ye  believed?"  The 
Greek  participle  used  in  the  last  clause  of 
each  of  these  passages  indicates  a  fact  co- 
75 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

temporaneous  with  the  leading  verb.  Yet 
the  Authorized  Version,  by  rendering 
"after  that"  and  "since"  impHes  an  interval 
of  time  of  which  the'  Greek  gives  no  hint. 
In  hundreds  of  instances  similar  changes 
are  made  in  the  interest  of  accuracy. 

5.  The  Article.  While  the  use  of  the 
Greek  article  does  not  exactly  correspond 
with  that  of  the  English,  in  many  instances 
the  Authorized  Version  fails  to  recognize 
it,  and  thus  obscures  the  sense.  This  is 
especially  true  in  the  important  passage, 
Romans  5:12-21,  where  "the  one"  and  "the 
many"  are  peculiarly  significant.  So,  too, 
where  "the  Christ"  refers  to  the  Messiah, 
and  not  directly  to  our  Lord. 

6.  Prepositions.  In  rendering  the  Greek 
prepositions  the  versions  of  1881  and  1901 
are  accurate  and  usually  in  agreement.  En- 
tire uniformity  is  impossible,  and  in  some 
passages  the  two  Versions  diflfer. 

Yet  the  American  Revised  New  Testa- 
ment has  many  distinctive  peculiarities. 

I.  The  Title  Pa^e.  Here  the  phrase 
"The  New  Covenant  commonly  called  the 
New  Testament"  is  peculiar.  The  Greek 
word,  often  rendered  "Testament"  in  the 
Authorized  Version,  which  occurs  in  the 
76 


The  Distinctive  Features 

title,  in  every  case  but  one  in  the  New 
Testament  (Heb.  9:  16,  17)  means  "cov- 
enant," and  this  is  a  far  more  appropriate 
term  for  the  entire  collection  of  books. 

2.  T]ic  List  of  Books.  Here  there  are 
several  peculiarities.  "The  Gospel"  is  the 
general  name  of  four  books  which  are  thus 
specified : — 

According  to  Matthew 

According  to  Mark 

According  to  Luke 

According  to  John 

Here  and  in  the  titles  of  the  several 
books  the  word  ''Saint"  is  omitted.  "The 
Acts"  is  the  briefer  form  given ;  "Apostle" 
is  omitted  in  the  titles  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles;  the  words  "of  Paul  the  Apostle" 
are  properly  dropped  from  the  title  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  "General"  is 
omitted  from  the  titles  of  the  Epistles  of 
James,  Peter,  John,  and  Jude,  being  en- 
tirely inapplicable  to  several  of  them ;  "The 
Revelation  of  John"  is  the  briefer  title  pre- 
fixed to  the  Apocalypse,  the  designation 
"the  Divine"  (literally,  "the  Theologian") 
being  of  late  origin.  The  English  Revisers 
have  retained  the  inaccurate  titles  of  the 
Authorized  Version. 

77 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

3.  Divisions.  While  the  paragraph  divi- 
sion is  adopted  in  both  Versions,  instead  of 
breaking  the  matter  into  verses,  the  verse 
numbers  are  placed  in  the  text  of  the  Amer- 
ican Revision,  instead  of  in  the  margin. 
The  paragraphs  are  slightly  more  numer- 
ous, and  in  some  cases  the  arrangement 
differs  from  that  of  the  English  Revision. 
A  notable  instance  is  at  Romans  3  :2i.  In 
most  of  the  Epistles  the  main  divisions  are 
indicated  by  leaving  a  line  blank  between 
two  principal  parts.  In  the  Book  of  Rev- 
elation the  anthems  and  Glorias  have  been 
printed  so  as  to  indicate  their  character. 

4.  The  Headings.  This  feature  is  en- 
tirely new.  In  many  editions  of  the 
Authorized  Version  each  chapter  is  pref- 
aced by  headings.  But  these  are  often 
incorrect  and  are  rarely  used.  By  pre- 
senting the  headings  at  the  top  of  the 
page,  the  American  Revision  makes  the 
use  of  them  more  convenient,  and  the 
headings  themselves,  having  been  made 
with  great  care,  are  accurate  and  helpful. 

5.  Fezver  Archaisms.  Reference  has  al- 
ready been  made  to  the  substitution  of 
"who"  or  "that"  when  persons  are  referred 
to.     But  many  more  changes  of  the  same 

78 


The  DistiJictive  Features 

general  character  appear  in  the  American 
Revised  Version.  The  Appendix  to  the 
quarto  edition  contains  a  list  of  twenty-four 
archaic  forms,  occurring  in  the  English 
Revision,  which  have  been  discarded. 
'Tiowbeit"  has  been  replaced  by  other  con- 
junctions in  a  number  of  instances,  and 
"treated"  has  been  substituted  for  "en- 
treated." "Teacher"  is  substituted  for 
"Master,"  where  the  Greek  term  didaskalos 
is  applied  to  Jesus. 

6.  Spelling.  This  has  been  largely 
altered  to  conform  with  American  usage. 
The  "u"  has  been  dropped  in  such  words 
as  "honor,"  etc.  But  the  form  "Saviour" 
has  been  retained  in  deference  to  sacred 
associations.  In  many  cases  the  usage 
followed  is  that  of  lexicographers  anterior 
to  Noah  Webster.  Of  course  there  was  no 
effort  to  introduce  "simplified  spelling." 

7.  Punctuation.  The  Authorized  Version 
in  its  punctuation  uses  what  is  called 
"heavy  stopping,"  and  both  Revised  Ver- 
sions have  followed  it,  since  the  adoption  of 
the  modern  system  would  have  called  for 
an  immense  number  of  changes.  The 
"heavy  stopping"  makes  use  of  the  colon 
and  semi-colon  to  a  much  larger  extent  than 

70 


The  Revised  N'ew  Testament 

the  modern  system,  and  employs  the  comma 
where  it  is  now  deemed  unnecessary.  This 
aids  in  the  accurate  presentation  of  the 
relation  of  clauses,  and  questions  of  punc- 
tuation were  frequently  and  fully  discussed. 
The  American  editors  have  occasionally 
made  alterations,  usually  by  a  lighter  punc- 
tuation. In  one  important  instance,  Acts 
18:23,  commas  have  been  introduced  to 
indicate  the  view  taken  of  that  particular 
passage.  The  English  Revision  leaves  it 
uncertain  whether  Phrygia  and  Galatia 
refer  to  two  regions  or  one  (as  some  now 
hold),  but  the"  American  Revision,  by  its 
punctuation,  indicates  that  two  distinct 
districts  of  country  are  meant,  thus  op- 
posing what  is  called  *'the  South  Galatian" 
theory  of  St.  Paul's  journeys.  It  may  be 
stated  here,  that  in  some  editions  of  the 
American  Standard  New  Testament  a 
comma  is  omitted  after  "eternal"  in  2 
Corinthians  5:1.  This  is  a  typographical 
error,  which  has  been  corrected.  "Eter- 
nal" is  not  to  be  directly  connected  with 
"in  the  heavens." 

8.  References.    These  are  newly  selected, 
as  has  been  already  stated   (§7).     While 
some-    of    the    passages    refer    to    similar 
80 


The  Distinctive  Features 

thoughts,  many,  especially  those  introduced 
by  "see"  or  "compare,"  are  intended  to 
throw  light  upon  the  use  of  words.  Par- 
allel passages  in  the  Gospels  are  indicated 
by  italics. 

9.  Special  Passages.  Some  of  the  pas- 
sages in  which  the  American  Revisers  differ 
from  the  English  are  here  selected.  These 
specimens  will  serve  to  indicate  the  methods 
of  the  editors,  and  in  some  cases  to  justify 
their  emendations.  They  are  arranged  in 
the  order  of  occurrence. 

Matthew  2:1,7,  16.  "Wise-men,"  to  show 
that  one  Greek  term  is  thus  rendered,  and 
by  the  use  of  a  capital  letter  to  indicate 
that  it  is  a  title. 

Matthew  10:39;  16:25,  26,  and  parallel 
passages.  The  marginal  rendering  "Or, 
sour'  is  omitted,  as  inappropriate. 

Matthew  19:14  and  Mark  10:14;  Luke 
18:16.  "To  such  belongeth"  is  substituted 
for  "of  such  is,"  since  the  Greek  genitive, 
literally,  "of  such"  seems  to  have  a  pos- 
sessive force. 

Matthew  26:45   ^"d   Mark   14:41.     The 
added  marginal  rendering:  "Do  ye  sleep  on, 
then,  and  take  your  rest?"  suggests  a  prob- 
able view  of  the  passage. 
81 


The  Revised  New  Testame^it 

Matthew  27 127  and  John  18 128,  33  ;  19 :9. 
"Praetorium,"  the  Latin  name  for  the  official 
residence  of  the  Roman  governor,  is  put  in 
the  text  instead  of  the  margin. 

Mark  14:3  and  John  12:3.  "Pure  nard" 
instead  of  the  uninteUigible  word  * 'spike- 
nard." The  Enghsh  Revision  gives  an  ex- 
planatory marginal  note.  The  American 
margin  is  "Or,  liquid  nard!' 

Luke  17:11.  "Along  the  borders"  instead 
of  "through  the  midst,"  suggests  a  more 
probable  view  of  this  particular  journey, 
and  is  equally  allowable  grammatically. 

Luke  18:7.  "And  yet  he  is."  By  insert- 
ing "yet"  a  more  intelligible  view  of  the 
passage  is  presented.  The  marginal  ren- 
dering, however,  deserves  consideration. 

John  5  \2y.  "A  son  of  man"  instead  of 
"the  Son  of  man."  The  English  edition 
gives  the  former  as  a  marginal  rendering. 

John  1 1 :39.  "The  body  decayeth"  in- 
stead of  the  somewhat  coarse  rendering 
"he  stinketh." 

John  17:24.  The  reading  accepted  here 
by  the  American  Revisers,  while  less  at- 
tested than  the  harsher  one  preferred  by  the 
English  Revisers,  presents  the  sense  quite 
clearly. 

82 


The  Distinctive  Features 

Acts  17:22.  ''Very  religious."  This 
preserves  the  courteous  character  of  Paul's 
utterance.  "Somewhat  superstitious"  fails 
in  this  respect. 

Acts  20:28.  "The  Lord"  is  placed  in  the 
text,  with  this  margin:  "Some  ancient 
authorities,  including  the  two  oldest  manu- 
scripts, read  God!^  The  English  Revisers 
put  "of  God"  in  the  text,  with  the  margin : 
"Many  ancient  authorities  read  the  Lord!' 
Dr.  Abbot  wrote  a  long  article  in  favor  of 
the  reading  preferred  by  the  American  Re- 
visers, which  was  sent  to  England,  and 
afterwards  included  in  a  posthumous  vol- 
ume of  Critical  Essays  from  his  pen. 

Acts  26:28,  29.  The  marginal  render- 
ings added  by  the  American  Revisers  sug- 
gest a  very  probable  interpretation  of  the 
language  of  Agrippa  and  Paul. 

Acts  28:16.  The  longer  reading,  which 
is  placed  in  the  margin  of  both  editions, 
is  altered  in  accordance  with  recent  investi- 
gations. The  Roman  officer  spoken  of  was 
"Chief  of  the  camp,"  where  prisoners  were 
received,  and  not  "the  Captain  of  the  prae- 
torian guard." 

Romans  i  :i7.  "From  faith  unto  faith"  is 
a  better  rendering  than  "by  faith  unto 
83 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

faith."  The  correspondence  in  Greek  with 
the  preposition  in  the  next  clause  is  shown 
by  a  marginal  note.  In  the  American 
Appendix  (1881)  the  statement  as  to  the 
margin  is  misleading. 

Romans  3:9.  ''Better"  is  retained  from 
the  Authorized  Version.  **In  worse  case" 
suggests  a  thought  opposed  by  the  context. 

Romans  3:25.  "In  his  blood"  is  prefer- 
able to  "by  his  blood."  The  English  margin, 
"Or,  faith,  in  his  blood,"  is  properly  omitted. 

Romans  4:1.  "Our  forefather,  hath  found 
according  to  the  flesh"  instead  of  "our  fore- 
father according  to  the  flesh  hath  found?" 
While  the  better  attested  reading  seems  to 
favor  the  latter  order,  thus  making  "accord- 
ing to  the  flesh"  simply  explain  "fore- 
father," the  context  suggests  the  ethical 
sense.  This  is  best  expressed  in  English 
by  the  order  of  thq  American  Version. 

Romans  5:1.  "We  have"  with  margin, 
"Many  ancient  authorities  read  let  us  have." 
The  latter  reading  is  better  attested,  yet  in- 
ternal reasons  led  to  the  acceptance  of  "we 
have"  in  the  text.  This  variation  affects 
also  verses  2  and  3. 

Romans  5  13,  4.  "Knowing  that  tribula- 
tion worketh  stedfastness ;  and  stedfastness, 
84 


The  Distinctive  Features 

approvedness ;  and  approvedness,  hope." 
"Stedfastness"  is  usually  given  as  a  mar- 
ginal rendering  for  "patience."  Here  it 
seemed  best  to  put  it  in  the  text.  "Ap- 
provedness" was  finally,  after  much  dis- 
cussion, substituted  for  "probation"  (Eng- 
lish Revision)  and  "experience"  (Author- 
ized Version),  neither  of  which  expresses 
so  exactly  the  sense  of  the  Greek. 

Romans  7:25.  "I  of  myself  with  the 
mind,  indeed,  serve,"  instead  of  "I  myself 
with  the  mind  serve."  "Of  myself"  im- 
plies independently  of  the  grace  of  God 
in  Christ. 

Romans  8:4-13.  "Spirit"  instead  of 
"spirit,"  since  the  Holy  Spirit  is  referred 
to. 

Romans  8:24.  "In  hope"  instead  of  "by 
hope,"  pointing  to  the  condition  of  "hope" 
in  which  believers  are  placed  when  salva- 
tion begins. 

Romans  14:1.  "Decision  of  scruples"  is 
more  intelligible  than  "doubtful  disputa- 
tions." 

I  Corinthians  2:13.    "Combining  spiritual 

things    with    spiritual    words,"    instead    of 

"comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual." 

The  preceding  context   favors   the   former 

85 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

view,  which  is  accepted  by  Bishop  Ellicott. 

I  Corinthians  7 133,  34.  Here,  in  addition 
to  a  difference  as^to'the  preferable  reading, 
the  Enghsh  Revision  has  an  alternate  ren- 
dering. 

I  Corinthians  12:31.  "And  moreover  a 
most  excellent  way,''  instead  of  "And  a  still 
more  excellent  way."  This  implies  a  slightly 
different  view  of  the  relation  of  Chapters 
12  and  13. 

I  Corinthians  14:33,  34.  The  division  of 
paragraphs  accepted  in  the  American  Re- 
vision makes  the  last  clause  of  verse  33  refer 
to  women  speaking  in  the  churches. 

I  Corinthians  15:2.  "Saved,  if  he  hold 
fast,"  presents  a  preferable  view  of  the  con- 
nection, which  is  substantially  that  of  the 
margin  in  the  English  Revision. 

I  Corinthians  16  '.22.  "Marana  tha"  with 
the  margin,  "That  is  O  (or  Our)  Lord, 
Come!"  The  English  Revision  has  "Maran 
atha"  with  the  margin,  "That  is.  Our  Lord 
cofneth/'  The  American  Revisers  regard 
"tha"  as  an  imperative,  which  is  the  view 
of  recent  commentators,  the  older  view 
taking  "atha"  as  an  indicative.  Hence  many 
have  supposed  the  form  in  the  American 
Revision  was  a  typographical  error,  but  it 
86 


The  Distinctive  Features 

represents  a  different  view,  a^  the  margin 
plainly  indicates. 

2  Corinthians  3:18.  "Beholding  as  in  a 
mirror,"  with  the  margin,  "Or,  rejecting  as 
a  mirror/'  In  the  English  Revision  the  text 
and  margin  exchange  places. 

2  Corinthians  12:21.  "Lest  again  when  I 
come  my  God,"  instead  of  "lest,  when  I 
come  again,  my  God."  The  passage  has  a 
bearing  on  the  question  of  Paul's  visits  to 
Corinth. 

Galatians  2:20.  "And  it  is  no  longer  I 
that  live,  but  Christ"  is  simpler  than  "yet  I 
live;  and  yet  no  longer  I,  but  Christ." 

Galatians  5:1.  "For  freedom"  is  prefer- 
able to  "With  freedom."  The  former  is  in 
the  English  margin.  With  this  verse  a  new 
division  of  the  Epistle  begins,  and  hence  it 
should  not  be  appended  to  the  preceding 
paragraph. 

Philippians  2  :6.  "Existing"  is  preferable 
to  "being"  and  the  rendering  of  the  latter 
part  of  the  verse  more  literal. 

Philippians  3  :8.  "Refuse"  is  one  of  the 
meanings  of  the  term  rendered  "dung." 

2  Thessalonians  2  :2.  "Is  just  at  hand"  is 
more  exact  than  "is  }tozv  present." 

Hebrews  2:16.  "Give  help"  and  "givcth 
87 


The  Revised  New  Testament 

help"  are  more  intelligible  than  "lay  hold" 
and  ''layeth  hold." 

Hebrews  4:2.  "It  was"  yields  a  clear 
sense,  while  "they  were"  is  almost  unintel- 
ligible. 

Hebrews  10:1.  "Can,"  agreeing  with  "the 
law,"  is  preferable  to  "they  can."  The 
plural  is  well  attested,  but  can  scarcely  be 
interpreted  with  clearness. 

Hebrews  11  :i.  The  rendering  of  this 
verse  in  the  American  Revision  is  more  con- 
sistent and  intelligible  than  that  of  the  Eng- 
lish Revision,  which  has  "the  assurance" 
and  "the  proving  of." 

Hebrews  12:3.  "Himself"  is  not  so  well 
attested  as  "themselves."  But  the  latter 
seems  to  be  weak  and  inappropriate. 

Hebrews  12:17.  "No  place  for  a  change 
of  mind  in  his  father"  with  two  marginal 
renderings;  of  these  the  former  is  that  of 
the  English  Revision,  the  latter  that  of  the 
Authorized  Version.  The  choice  is  between 
the  rendering  in  the  text  and  the  first 
one  in  the  margin. 

Revelation  1 113.  The  marginal  rendering 
*'0r,  the  Son  of  man"  is  properly  omitted, 
since  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  title  our 
Lord  gives  to  himself. 


The  Distinctive  Features 

This  brief  sketch  may  be  closed  most 
appropriately  by  citing  the  final  paragraph 
of  the  Revisers'  Preface*  : — 

'The  present  volume  [that  is,  the 
American  Revised  New  Testament],  it  is 
believed,  will  on  the  one  hand  bring  a  plain 
reader  more  closely  into  contact  with  the 
exact  thought  of  the  sacred  writers  than 
any  version  now  current  in  Christendom, 
and  on  the  other  hand  prove  itself  especially 
serviceable  to  students  of  the  Word.  In 
this  belief  the  editors  bid  it  anew  God- 
speed, and  in  the  realization  of  this  de- 
sired result  they  will  find  their  all- 
sufficient  reward." 

*This  paragraph  is  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Thayer,  the  last 
of  his  many  labors  on  the  American  Revised  New  Testa- 
ment. 


89 


DATE  DUE 

m%^ 

IBM 

unviJJ^ 

mf^' 

Demco,  Inc.  38-?93 

The  ??ory  o1  the  Revised  New  Testament, 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1012  00061   6054 


